Aha ... that explains it perfectly, thanks very much Adina for that. All makes sense -although I hadn't realised that the 2nd stage spiritual person's gravity of consciousness wasn't in the Soul yet. I thought because they have experienced up to the first four states of Samadhi that they must be, at least to some extent, anchored in the Soul for that to even occur. But from what you say that isn't so.

To make it really clear - I did not make the post about the origins of EA and Steven Forrest's later involvement to criticize what you said. My intentions were not personal about you at all. They were to clarify, for those who come along and read this later, what the actual origins of EA are.

One of the ways the belief that Steven Forrest co-created EA with Jeffrey has spread is because it has been stated in print a number of times. Due to the repetition factor, the more people read that the more it gets accepted as true. Especially when they read it on this message board, whose reason for being is to bring EA back to its original core focus. Thus it is important to clarify certain things said on this board, to stop the spreading of ideas that are not true.

oh yes, I did not take it personally, what I said without really knowing the depth or lack of how Jeffrey and Steven worked together set off a genuine response from you. No problem... I stand corrected about EA development.. It actually got me to re-read the forward to the measuring the night books and yes, steven says he pursured Jeff for his revolutionary ideas...

I also am very particular about clarity so I have no problem in setting the record straight!

Thank you so much for clarifying the difference between 3rd stage consensus and 2nd stage spiritual for me. It makes a lot of sense. I feel I can relax a tad knowing that there's a possibility of avoiding the pitfall. But I also find it true that it's very hard to carve out a space in this world where one can honor those natural laws and not get eaten alive. It makes me so sad - and tired.

Here's an attempt I made at Oprah's chart. I was trying to keep in mind 3rd stage consensus. But right off the bat I think I encountered a snare. Would 3rd stage consensus come in really knowing who they are? I'd love feedback.

Also, I'd like to share a personal anecdote regarding Oprah and get feedback on what this might mean in terms of her evolutionary state. I had been ill for a number of years and, somewhere in the throes of that, I wrote her a brief note. I had been feeling grateful at the time for her modeling of giving. I said that when I was well, I wanted to help others. I was not expecting anything back. A few days later while I was walking down the street, I felt a wave of loving energy envelope me. I felt this for some time. I hadn't been thinking about Oprah when it came, but it very much felt like her. My question is, does this say anything about her evolutionary state?

Oprah WinfreyOprah came into this life already knowing in a very deep way her purpose in life. This knowing came from deep within and is based on a deep, psychological understanding of who she is at the core of her being (Pluto in Leo in the 8th house). Her sense of purpose is rooted in a radical inner self-relating that itself is grounded in the experience of being perceived as different by virtue of her belonging to a specific racial/ethnic group. The inner insecurity that this situation produced necessitated the development of a strong inner sense of right and wrong (Moon in Sagittarius in 11th).Oprah is here to continue the work that was started in a prior life of moving society forward through service (Pluto rx sextile Neptune rx in the 10th house, Neptune rx trine Jupiter rx in 6th house, Neptune rx applying to the SN). This work involves re-patterning society’s basic thought structures and moral codes (Mercury in Aquarius in 2nd house conjunct NN completes a grand trine with Jupiter and Neptune). This re-patterning also involves a radical shift in race relations grounded in her own inner sense of self (SN conjunct Uranus rx in Cancer in 7th house, Pluto rx in Leo in 8th). She is also here to realize her dream of freeing her people from the mental patterning of bondage that still lingers through her commitment to education – to literally build educational structures (Grand Trine, Uranus sextile Neptune, NN in capricorn).Oprah is also here to understand herself in a new way (NN in 1st house). This new way involves personal responsibility and self-reliance (NN in 1st house, PPP in 2nd house). Understanding who she is in the world is of particular importance (Saturn in 10th house). It is not surprising that among her first successes in life was that of beauty queen (Saturn square Venus/Sun). Image is a key theme for Oprah in this life (elevated Neptune applying to SN). The ultimate lesson in this regard seems to be to learn that beauty is within (Neptune rx, Venus conjunct Sun). It is also not surprising that she has struggled with extremes in terms of physical appearance, that this has occurred in the public eye and that this has been an area of personal, inner growth (Neptune in Libra in the 10th trine Jupiter trine Mercury in 2nd house – this is me, conjunct PPP).Oprah’s massive wealth seems very much tied into the personal depths that she has achieved in prior lives which guides and governs and creatively combines with her astute management of her resources (Pluto rx in Leo in the 8th quintile Saturn in Scorpio in the 10th). Her experience of poverty and her father’s consequent teaching about saving also factors in. The lesson, in other words, was absorbed deeply, resulting in the accumulation of personal riches (Saturn in Scorpio in the 10th square [1st quarter] Sun/Venus). There is also a connection between wealth and relationship to the Divine (Pluto sextile Neptune in Libra).

What I would add here is that, to me, her huge accumulation of wealth seems connected to her insecurity - a compensation. And this statement seems to go against the previous paragraph, which in turn makes me question the first paragraph. Any thoughts?

It's great you seem to be now posting without hassles ! I enjoyed your analysis of Oprah, nicely written.

Just a thought ...is Oprah attached to her wealth? I don't see having lots of money as, in itself, necessarily being a only a consensus thing, money comes in many ways, hard work and saving being one of them, but that doesn't mean a person is necessarily consensus does it? Or does it? It is more to do with one's attitude towards money I would have thought (and I know little about her, let alone her real attitude towards her wealth).

I'll offer a few thoughts on your experience and on Oprah's evolutionary stage. First, although it was Oprah's example that stirred you, and you wrote to her about it, the bottom line is that you put out the thought - the energy - the pure intention - that you wanted to help others, and you did this "without expectating anything back." God and gurus recognize such pure intentions of selfless love and desire to serve, so my guess is that the universe/source/god'dess heard your desire and confirmed it with that feeling you had. You might have equated it with Oprah because she had been on your mind.

Also, I came across a quote the other day by Oprah that is quite relevant to what we all have been discussing: "Somewhere I have always known I was born for greatness in my life." The operative word here, to me, is "greatness," indicating that she's thinking about herSELF: It's all about HER. Also, other than two issues of her Oprah magazine, she is always the only one on the cover of it. Hmmm. And I think you really answered your own question about whether or not a 3rd stage consensus person would know who they are, just by the fact that you said you 'hit a snare." None of this negates the good she has done for others, and she has done a great deal to help people.

I just remembered another thing that Jeffrey used to say in relation to this very thing, i.e., doing what's right, doing what's 'good,' helping others, etc. because we pretty much all know people in the consensus state who ARE kind and DO give their time and money, etc. to help others. But the bottom line is, does the person do it because they're "supPOSed to" or out of fear of retribution/punishment or simply because it's the right thing to do?

It's great you seem to be now posting without hassles ! I enjoyed your analysis of Oprah, nicely written.

Just a thought ...is Oprah attached to her wealth? I don't see having lots of money as, in itself, necessarily being a only a consensus thing, money comes in many ways, hard work and saving being one of them, but that doesn't mean a person is necessarily consensus does it? Or does it? It is more to do with one's attitude towards money I would have thought (and I know little about her, let alone her real attitude towards her wealth).

Upasika

Hi Upasika,

Thank you for your kind words. I have similar questions. We all have wounds we're working out. If someone accumulates a lot of wealth as compensation, does that, indeed, define them as consensus? To me, Oprah, frankly, seems 2nd stage spiritual. But it depends, I think, on what, ultimately, got her through her struggles - her sense of belonging to the masses, or her sense of belonging to the Divine. My sense, again, from observation, is a combination of both - her strong sense of identity with the struggles of her ancestors and, through that heritage, a strong faith in God. So I can also completely see an argument for 3rd stage consensus. If money is, indeed, a compensation (the sense I get from what I've observed is that it would be hard for her to let it go), might this - the wounds beneath it - be part of what is in need of healing/purification - the part of seeing only a part of the truth due to the limitations of wounds? Or am I completely misunderstanding this concept? Hopefully Adina or someone else who knows more will respond.

One final thing I would add is that again, based on my observations, her faith does not seem rote, which to me, if I'm getting this, would be characteristic of consensus.

I'll offer a few thoughts on your experience and on Oprah's evolutionary stage. First, although it was Oprah's example that stirred you, and you wrote to her about it, the bottom line is that you put out the thought - the energy - the pure intention - that you wanted to help others, and you did this "without expectating anything back." God and gurus recognize such pure intentions of selfless love and desire to serve, so my guess is that the universe/source/god'dess heard your desire and confirmed it with that feeling you had. You might have equated it with Oprah because she had been on your mind.

Also, I came across a quote the other day by Oprah that is quite relevant to what we all have been discussing: "Somewhere I have always known I was born for greatness in my life." The operative word here, to me, is "greatness," indicating that she's thinking about herSELF: It's all about HER. Also, other than two issues of her Oprah magazine, she is always the only one on the cover of it. Hmmm. And I think you really answered your own question about whether or not a 3rd stage consensus person would know who they are, just by the fact that you said you 'hit a snare." None of this negates the good she has done for others, and she has done a great deal to help people.

I just remembered another thing that Jeffrey used to say in relation to this very thing, i.e., doing what's right, doing what's 'good,' helping others, etc. because we pretty much all know people in the consensus state who ARE kind and DO give their time and money, etc. to help others. But the bottom line is, does the person do it because they're "supPOSed to" or out of fear of retribution/punishment or simply because it's the right thing to do?

I' hope some others will add to the discussion.

Hi Adina,

Thanks for your response. I posted something just as you were posting this, so you have addressed much of my post. I am extremely interested in your perspective. I did want to clarify that in fact Oprah WASN'T on my mind when I had the experience.

Yes, I agree. She very much seems to identify with the "greatness". I think, once again, it is my own still limited understanding of the evolutionary states - and perhaps sufficient acquaintance (not necessarily personal) with examples of people in the spiritual state. The whole thing seems so darn tricky. One question I would like to pose for the purposes of helping me to better understand the states is, is it possible that that identification with greatness that Oprah has is simply part of her flawed nature that is still in need of purification? In other words, are you saying that under no circumstances a 2nd stage spiritual person would identify themselves with greatness? I also talk about money - what seems to be her identification with her wealth - and so I'll ask the same question about money. Does that identification preclude her from 2nd stage spiritual in and of itself?

Here is another anecdote that I read in a book about the founder of the Himalayan Institute (I can't think of his name). In that book is a story of a prince (I believe) who led a very wanton life. In the end he was burned on a pyre. His body was floated down river where a disciple of a guru found it. The guru said, bring him to me, he's mine, and then proceded to bring him back to life. I am not sure what this story means in terms of the evolutionary state of the prince. But I think I always just assumed he was pretty advanced but had this flaw and the life that he lived leading to death on a pyre was the way to purify him. So I think that is where I am coming from re: Oprah.

Yes, all these factors are very interesting. But when it comes to Oprah, I'm not from the states, I never watch her show, and so know extremely little about her so I couldn't say one way or another. My question about wealth and consensus was relevant to her, but I was also asking it as a general question as I don't know enough to comment on Oprah specifically.I like what Adina has to say about her, but again I can only be a passive observer of this chat about Oprah as I know so little about her.

Keep in mind one of the people closest to Yogananda was a very wealthy man. Again, its not what you do on the outside, its what you are doing on the inside. This has no direct bearing on Oprah, its intended to illustrate a principle.

From Wikipedia:Rajarsi Janakananda, born James Jesse Lynn (May 5, 1892 – February 20, 1955) was the leading disciple of the yogi Paramahansa Yogananda and a prominent businessman in the Kansas City, Missouri area. A self-made millionaire when he met Yogananda in 1932, he later left a total endowment of approximately six million dollars to Yogananda's organization, Self-Realization Fellowship, helping ensure its long-term success. Yogananda also chose Janakananda to succeed him as president of Self-Realization Fellowship. Janakananda was president of Self-Realization Fellowship from 1952 until 1955.

James Jesse Lynn was born into relative poverty to Jesse William Lynn, an itinerant farmer, and Salethia Archibald Lynn near Archibald, Louisiana, in the southern part of the United States. His early childhood was spent helping the family pick cotton, milk cows, churn butter, and doing other family chores. His simple education began in a small log schoolhouse.

Leaving school at the age of fourteen, he began working for the Missouri Pacific Railroad, sweeping floors for $2 a month. He continued with various railroad jobs for a few years, quickly moving up to the position of chief clerk to the division manager in Kansas City, Missouri. In Kansas City, he took night classes to finish his high school education, at the same time that he took law and accounting classes.

At 21 he began working at the Bell Telephone accounting division and, before even graduating from law school, he was admitted to the Missouri bar. In 1913, he was married to Freda Josephine Prill of Kansas City. At age 24, Lynn took and passed the Missouri certified public accountant exam, earning the highest score on that exam ever made. Soon after, he began working for the largest underwriting insurance company in the country, U.S. Epperson, and quickly worked his way up in the company. By the age of 30, Lynn had taken out a significant and risky loan to buy the U.S. Epperson Underwriting Company. That step launched a successful business career that included insurance underwriting, oil well and orchard ownership, and large investments in the railroad business. He would become a prominent businessman in the Kansas City area.

In spite of his material success Lynn was unhappy, and acknowledged that he had a short temper and nervous problems. In January, 1932, his life changed when he attended a series of classes given by Paramahansa Yogananda. Lynn felt instantly transformed in Yogananda’s presence:

On the second night of the class, I became aware that I was sitting upright, my spine straight and I was absolutely motionless. I looked down at my hands, which were so restlessly moving before and which were now perfectly still… I knew I had found the path that gave me inner peace and satisfaction and that I had found that something tangible I was seeking, a guru.

In Kansas City in 1932, following one of his lectures, Yogananda met Lynn privately. Shortly after that meeting, Lynn was initiated by Yogananda as his disciple. Because of bad publicity in the Kansas City area from his friendship with a previous Hindu teacher, Lynn and Yogananda agreed to avoid publicity regarding their association.

During the following twenty years, Lynn paid frequent visits to Yogananda at his main residence in Los Angeles, eventually moving to an apartment at Yogananda’s retreat in Encinitas, California. The two spent long hours together over the years, meditating and discussing spiritual matters. Lynn said of his relationship with Yogananda:

One of the blessings I have received in my friendship with Paramahansa Yogananda has been permanent relief from a state of nervousness, a state of strain, an inward state of uncertainty. I have gained calmness, peace, joy, and a sense of security that cannot come to anyone until he has found the true security of the soul.

On August, 22, 1951, Yogananda gave Lynn the spiritual title Rajarsi Janakananda. Rajarsi combines the Sanskrit words raja, which means royal, and rishi, which means sage; thus the title Royal Sage. The second part of his name refers to King Janaka, famous in ancient India as a wealthy ruler who was also considered a great rishi. Later, Yogananda changed the spelling of James Lynn's sanyassi name, "Rajarsi," to "Rajasi." On Christmas, 1951, Yogananda explained to disciples that the name spelled without the 'r' means "King of the Saints," which is what he felt James Lynn really was. Yogananda said that Janakananda was his most spiritually advanced disciple. Yogananda was also frequently heard to say that he passed his spiritual mantle, or power, to Janakananda.

a) Given the nature of the consensus stage, would it be highly unlikely that someone in this stage (unless at the end of the 3rd substage) would actually go to someone for an astrology reading in the first place? Seems it would be a bit of a contradiction.

b) I realise that it's what's going on the inside rather than outside that determines things, but generally would someone who was a mental health social worker be unlikely to be in consensus stage? The pay is often below average but can be good, but what they are doing is a very unselfish kind of job ... would this generally exclude a consensus type of attitude to life (taking, getting ahead, corruption etc) and thus being at the consensus stage?

c) If someone has done a lot of therapy and self development work on themselves (group processes/workshops/individual and group based therapies etc), would that generally indicate they were in the individuated stage?

a) Given the nature of the consensus stage, would it be highly unlikely that someone in this stage (unless at the end of the 3rd substage) would actually go to someone for an astrology reading in the first place? Seems it would be a bit of a contradiction.

I agree with that. Astrology is considered by consensus as bogus (except for the daily horoscope) thus consensus people won't be seeking astrological counsel.

Quote

b) I realise that it's what's going on the inside rather than outside that determines things, but generally would someone who was a mental health social worker be unlikely to be in consensus stage? The pay is often below average but can be good, but what they are doing is a very unselfish kind of job ... would this generally exclude a consensus type of attitude to life (taking, getting ahead, corruption etc) and thus being at the consensus stage?

not necessarily. the basic values taught a mental health social worker are the values or ideals of the consensus society. Not everyone in consensus state is selfish or self-centered. Also consider that in the US at least, the majority of mental health social workers are female. Consider the societal conditioning of the sorts of roles and attitudes that females are taught are proper - serving, giving, subduing self to the needs of others. Those are consensus values and can be carried out in a consensus way.

when someone beyond the consensus state finds self in that sort of job, and the sort of institution such people are employed by, they will tend to find themselves rebelling against the structural and philosophical limitations those situations impose.

The end result of consensus mental health social work training would be to orient clients to become functioning members of the consensus society, adopting the collective values - hard work, responsible, family values, church, etc.

Quote

c) If someone has done a lot of therapy and self development work on themselves (group processes/workshops/individual and group based therapies etc), would that generally indicate they were in the individuated stage?

That depends on the nature of the therapy and self development work they have done. Remember, the evolutionary pull operates in all stages, including consensus. Virgo energy, for example, has a strong orientation to self-improvement. They could be doing therapy and self development work to become more functional and productive members of the consensus reality, through conforming to the collective stated values while expanding the range of their self-knowledge and awareness, yet still within the realm of what are consensus values.

Individuated and spiritual stage souls will be attracted to a very different type of therapy and self development work, as they will be attempting to break from consensus values and discovering more about their own uniqueness and nature. They will have little interest in trying to find ways to conform to societal expectations.

Good to hear what you have to say, confirms the astro reading one (I've always felt that), and I can see just what you mean about the mental health worker too, yes they do tend to be women more etc etc and that all makes sense.

I can also see what you mean about the self development situation, but it would need somewhat detailed knowledge of the content of the work they've done to discern accurately. Seems more and more that talking lots with the person and asking many questions before or at the beginning of a reading is unavoidable in many cases to precisely ascertain the stage/substage correctly...takes up a lot of time. I know sometimes it is obvious, and easily intuited or they kind of spell it out for you just by being who they are, but often something of a mini spanish inquisition seems necessary! The hardest one I find to pick is 1st stage individual, because of the compensation element inherent.

Is there any reason why no one is mentioning one of the individual states for Oprah? I do not know enough about the states yet or EA to post my sense about this topic, so the reason I am even posting a reply here is bc I think I may be missing something about individualized states? Is there an earlier post or thread I havent read? I just wonder why the discussion is between 3rd consensus or spiritual and not individualized at all? That just seems like a huge gap with a lot of differences that would be very obvious and perhaps the middle ground of somewhere in the individualized states would be considered, and if not, why?. But again, I am very new to this paradigm so maybe I am overlooking the obvious? Curious..

Thanks for any feedback,Dhyana

The reason for the 3rd consensus/2nd spiritual discussion was that somewhere in the thread someone explained 2nd stage spiritual as one who believes they have the ONE truth and so feels the need to convince and convert others to that truth, which is why they experience the downfall. (Reply no. 20 by Ellen).

Here's what I posted earlier in relation to that: First, the belief that one has the one and only spiritual truth leading to the need to convince and convert is associated with 3rd stage consensus; people like Billy Graham. Jeffrey used to say that he had "scripture realization" not God realization. The 2nd stage spiritual person DOES actually have a toehold on the truth, but it's only a PIECE of that truth, not the WHOLE truth. That's their "mistake," if you will, thinking that one piece is the whole thing. By the end of 2nd stage spiritual (again, as JWG taught it), the person typically has experienced the first four levels of samadhi, and they DO actually have a certain amount of God realization, but again, it's only partial in comparison to the totallity possible in a human form. (Reply No. 26).

Ellen also asked about whether one HAS to experience the 2nd stage downfall as described, so I reiterated the way that Jeffrey taught the evolutionary stages in the first place, as well as the way he said one could avoid that severe a downfall. You'll also find that in Reply No. 26).

If you still have questions after reading that, please let us know. As I mentioned earlier, and as MANY EA's have said and experienced, determining the evolutionary stage seems to be one of the most difficult things, especially at first. But it's also one of the most important.

Jeffrey originally covered the evolutionary states in Pluto I and Pluto II, and the Pluto School, and Deva also discussed them in her book, EA: Pluto and Your Karmic Mission.